Film: Dirt! The Movie Directors: Bill Benenson, Gene Rosow, and Eleonore Dailly Year: 2009 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film makes the case that we are inherently connected to dirt, as it provides us with the foundation from which springs all life: we grow crops from it, we build houses with it, and from it stems all the other forms of wildlife we so desperately depend on. Recently, however, this fertile material has been abused. Instead of using it as a tool for life, we have been ignoring its vital properties and destroying it in a variety of ways.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Because dirt is so abundant, people generally take it for granted; agribusinesses are stripping it of its vital nutrients and replacing them with the after products of pesticides and fertilizers, cities and highways are covering it up and our restructuring of waterways has lead to desertification of major tracts of earth. This problem is widespread throughout the industrialized and industrializing world, with perhaps the completely unindustrialized zones being the only ones left not rearranging it and dismantling it.
One area the film discussed to great extent was the desertification of specific regions. Although companies practicing mountain top removal are required by law to “reclaim” all of the land which has been disrupted, this practice is still new and usually yields deserts in just a few years as plants struggle to grow in soil devoid of nutrients. Farming can also yield desertification. Although dirt can sustain single grain agriculture for a short period, once all of the nutrients have been used up the land becomes infertile and loses its ability to hold itself together. This has, in the past, lead to catastrophes such as the American Dust bowl. Today similar problems are arising in developing nations, such as Sub Saharan Africa.
Another area discussed by the film is the disempowerment of the poor by removing their dirt from them. A few correctional facilities have attempted to reunite poorer areas, such as the South Bronx, with dirt in an attempt to give those living there a chance at changing their environments. This leads to a healthier relationship not only with the earth itself, but with those one shares it with.
Extreme exploitation of the earth in the United States, which has yielded massive amounts of food, has disrupted the relationship Indian farmers have with the earth by rendering the crops they grow too expensive to be competitive. This externalization of cost onto the Indian farmers’ way of life has lead to massive suicide rates, as farmer in the regions must now find new jobs as their connection with the earth has been severed by exploitation of dirt elsewhere. Estimated numbers of Indian farmers who have committed suicide, leaving their families to fend for themselves, are as high as 200,000.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Although I’m usually not a fan of pathos based arguments, I found the one in this film to be both sensitive and moving. The little character they used to represent the dirt was adorable, and the way in which dirt was discussed was always like to that of a living entity. The argument involving the Indian farmers was particularly moving as well; the scene in which a widow laments the loss of her husband was particularly moving.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Although the little animation of the dirt was cute, and the stories which were told were full of emotion involving our relationship to the earth, there were very little facts supporting why most of the things which they mentioned were true. Although it was clear that the few correctional facility inmates were having a life changing experience working in a community garden, it wasn’t made clear that this practice, on a larger scale, was effective at delivering the “epiphany” these inmates had experienced.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film would be best tailored to those who are uneducated, or who might be easily overwhelmed by the presentation of too much data. Children in particular might find this movie to be more appealing, seeing as it relies on emotional arguments that they can understand.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Although it would cater well to a less educated crowd, a more intellectually stimulated one might have desired a few more facts about dirt’s intrinsic value. Perhaps if the film had gone out and compared dirt samples for nutrients in different areas, the scientific explanation behind the things they were talking about might have done more to enhance the environmental educational value.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Although the diversification of crops and good farming practices were stressed throughout the film, interventions which are more capable of being conducted by the user involve the purchase of organic crops and participation in home gardening, as both of these enhance ones relationship to the earth.
Directors: Bill Benenson, Gene Rosow, and Eleonore Dailly
Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film makes the case that we are inherently connected to dirt, as it provides us with the foundation from which springs all life: we grow crops from it, we build houses with it, and from it stems all the other forms of wildlife we so desperately depend on. Recently, however, this fertile material has been abused. Instead of using it as a tool for life, we have been ignoring its vital properties and destroying it in a variety of ways.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Because dirt is so abundant, people generally take it for granted; agribusinesses are stripping it of its vital nutrients and replacing them with the after products of pesticides and fertilizers, cities and highways are covering it up and our restructuring of waterways has lead to desertification of major tracts of earth. This problem is widespread throughout the industrialized and industrializing world, with perhaps the completely unindustrialized zones being the only ones left not rearranging it and dismantling it.
One area the film discussed to great extent was the desertification of specific regions. Although companies practicing mountain top removal are required by law to “reclaim” all of the land which has been disrupted, this practice is still new and usually yields deserts in just a few years as plants struggle to grow in soil devoid of nutrients. Farming can also yield desertification. Although dirt can sustain single grain agriculture for a short period, once all of the nutrients have been used up the land becomes infertile and loses its ability to hold itself together. This has, in the past, lead to catastrophes such as the American Dust bowl. Today similar problems are arising in developing nations, such as Sub Saharan Africa.
Another area discussed by the film is the disempowerment of the poor by removing their dirt from them. A few correctional facilities have attempted to reunite poorer areas, such as the South Bronx, with dirt in an attempt to give those living there a chance at changing their environments. This leads to a healthier relationship not only with the earth itself, but with those one shares it with.
Extreme exploitation of the earth in the United States, which has yielded massive amounts of food, has disrupted the relationship Indian farmers have with the earth by rendering the crops they grow too expensive to be competitive. This externalization of cost onto the Indian farmers’ way of life has lead to massive suicide rates, as farmer in the regions must now find new jobs as their connection with the earth has been severed by exploitation of dirt elsewhere. Estimated numbers of Indian farmers who have committed suicide, leaving their families to fend for themselves, are as high as 200,000.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Although I’m usually not a fan of pathos based arguments, I found the one in this film to be both sensitive and moving. The little character they used to represent the dirt was adorable, and the way in which dirt was discussed was always like to that of a living entity. The argument involving the Indian farmers was particularly moving as well; the scene in which a widow laments the loss of her husband was particularly moving.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Although the little animation of the dirt was cute, and the stories which were told were full of emotion involving our relationship to the earth, there were very little facts supporting why most of the things which they mentioned were true. Although it was clear that the few correctional facility inmates were having a life changing experience working in a community garden, it wasn’t made clear that this practice, on a larger scale, was effective at delivering the “epiphany” these inmates had experienced.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film would be best tailored to those who are uneducated, or who might be easily overwhelmed by the presentation of too much data. Children in particular might find this movie to be more appealing, seeing as it relies on emotional arguments that they can understand.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Although it would cater well to a less educated crowd, a more intellectually stimulated one might have desired a few more facts about dirt’s intrinsic value. Perhaps if the film had gone out and compared dirt samples for nutrients in different areas, the scientific explanation behind the things they were talking about might have done more to enhance the environmental educational value.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Although the diversification of crops and good farming practices were stressed throughout the film, interventions which are more capable of being conducted by the user involve the purchase of organic crops and participation in home gardening, as both of these enhance ones relationship to the earth.